Archaeologists announced a discovery that has broad implications for the history of the Amazon: evidence
of human settlements in Bolivia dating back at least 10,000 years.

International researchers came to this conclusion after discovering remnants of human activity in three mounds examined out of the hundreds that
scatter the the Llanos de Moxos region in present-day Bolivia, according to the paper published this week in peer-reviewed scientific journal PLoS
ONE. Inside some of the mounds was evidence apparently left by human foragers, including ancient sea shells, animal bones and charcoal. Radiocarbon
dating of the soil suggests the mounds are the oldest known archaeological sites in the area.

I'm not exactly sure how to take this other than it's an interesting read. I thought I'd pop in and share it with those here who care for this type of
story/discovery. It's short but sweet. There are some photos.

With all the evidence that people have been in SA for at least 20k years and as many as 40k it stuns me that the academic world still hangs
tenaciously to that 13k year threshold.
What I would like to know is what kind of points they used, ad that will tell which wave that came in with, and also human remains, as the skulls
would tell us a great deal.

With all the evidence that people have been in SA for at least 20k years and as many as 40k it stuns me that the academic world still hangs
tenaciously to that 13k year threshold.
What I would like to know is what kind of points they used, ad that will tell which wave that came in with, and also human remains, as the skulls
would tell us a great deal.

Actually, the academics are the ones arguing that it's 20k years and possibly more.

What this simply says is that they've found a 10k settlement in the Amazon area. That's interesting because the decomposers of the area rather
quickly tear apart anything and turn it into soil. The mounds look interesting, though, and could turn out to be village sites.

What this will do, however, is spark more research on this group and provide better evidence for how early the Amazon was actually peopled.

The region of present-day Bolivia explored by researchers was previously believed to have been environmentally unfriendly to early humans,
discouraging habitation. This new research proposes an alternative version of early human history in the area, however.

I wonder how many "other" areas were actually suitable? Researchers need to rethink this.

There might be other settlements out there. I guess its all a learning experience, even for those who are actually doing the job of finding them.

Curious to know if the "Clovis First" dogma still looms over the Americas? I mean, 10k......that would kinda challenge the whole notion, unless
they went down to the Amazon, then up to the Desert Southwest.

Hey Bryd,
I was brief in my post, but what I was getting at is, in NA at least, there is still a lot of resistance to a preclovis occupation.
With some early sites the counter claims still being made ate so outlandish as to be as bad as ancient alien theory.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Curious to know if the "Clovis First" dogma still looms over the Americas? I mean, 10k......that would kinda challenge the whole notion, unless
they went down to the Amazon, then up to the Desert Southwest.

The Clovis First is pretty much out the window, thanks to sites here in Texas (among other places):
www.nytimes.com...

Hey Bryd,
I was brief in my post, but what I was getting at is, in NA at least, there is still a lot of resistance to a preclovis occupation.
With some early sites the counter claims still being made ate so outlandish as to be as bad as ancient alien theory.

I think most are in favor of a Pre-Clovis peopling of the Americas. Buttermilk Creek is certainly reported to be one such site, and there are others
that have been dated to 20,000 years and maybe earlier. Genetic analysis also shows an earlier presence.

check out the link that was posted to Nova's "Ice age death trap",in the thread on earliest huntinge.
The first 45 minutes deal with an excavation of a ancient lake in Colorado, that yields mammoth , mastadon, bison and such going back 200,000
years.
All pretty straight forward stuff until the last 15 minutes, when they go over the front half of a mammoth, only the front half , that was buried in a
peat bog, and was covered with stones.
Stones not found in the bog itself, and the cracked rib that has cut marks on it. Here's the kicker it is securely dated to 60k years ago.
Hmm 60 k!
Here's the link m.youtube.com...
ac.1.23.youtube-reduced..0.4.175.PV3Ohihis40

check out the link that was posted to Nova's "Ice age death trap",in the thread on earliest huntinge.
The first 45 minutes deal with an excavation of a ancient lake in Colorado, that yields mammoth , mastadon, bison and such going back 200,000
years.
All pretty straight forward stuff until the last 15 minutes, when they go over the front half of a mammoth, only the front half , that was buried in a
peat bog, and was covered with stones.
Stones not found in the bog itself, and the cracked rib that has cut marks on it. Here's the kicker it is securely dated to 60k years ago.
Hmm 60 k!

[editby

I viewed the film, two corrections the lake is 150,000 years and the clay layer was dated to 45,000

Niède Guidon, that woman anthropologist whose team found hearths she dated at 45,000 bce in South America and was soundly ridiculed? (I believe it's
Pedra Furada in Brazil, and the dating went as far back as 60,000 for some artifacts, and the whole ordeal (ridicule) led her to give up archeology
if my shaky memory (aided by wiki) serves... so even sexism can change the timeline).

With the CO find noted above... well, timelines are made to be broken...

check out the link that was posted to Nova's "Ice age death trap",in the thread on earliest huntinge.
The first 45 minutes deal with an excavation of a ancient lake in Colorado, that yields mammoth , mastadon, bison and such going back 200,000
years.
All pretty straight forward stuff until the last 15 minutes, when they go over the front half of a mammoth, only the front half , that was buried in a
peat bog, and was covered with stones.
Stones not found in the bog itself, and the cracked rib that has cut marks on it. Here's the kicker it is securely dated to 60k years ago.
Hmm 60 k!

[editby

I viewed the film, two corrections the lake is 150,000 years and the clay layer was dated to 45,000

Intriguing to bad they didn't find more cut marks or stone tools

edit on 4/9/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Hey Hans
My bad on the dating, but intriguing yes, very.
I would bet there is a nearby campsite yet to be found.

BEIJING — Pottery fragments found in a south China cave have been confirmed to be 20,000 years old, making them the oldest known pottery in the
world, archaeologists say.

The findings, which will appear in the journal Science on Friday (June 2012), add to recent efforts that have dated pottery piles in east Asia to more
than 15,000 years ago, refuting conventional theories that the invention of pottery correlates to the period about 10,000 years ago when humans moved
from being hunter-gathers to farmers.

Sea voyages are possible with pottery. In North and South America, the high protein diet and nomadic life style diminished the utility of fragile,
heavy, earthen vessels. So no pottery was made in the Western Hemisphere. Devolution.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.